Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
battle-training-mcp

battle-training-mcp

by ciperx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_bot

Retrieve a bot's ratings by version, health status, and recent matches with replay links using its name.

Instructions

Ratings per version, health (timeouts/exceptions), recent matches with replays.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_bot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints at returned content categories (ratings, health, recent matches), but says nothing about read-only nature, required permissions, bot-existence errors, rate limits, or response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single fragment with no clear subject or verb. It is short but under-specified rather than efficiently concise, and it does not front-load the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, essential context is missing: what the tool actually does with 'name', what the response contains, and how it differs from sibling tools. The listed facets provide only partial coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the required 'name' parameter. It does not clarify whether 'name' is a bot name, ID, or something else, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase listing data facets ('Ratings per version, health (timeouts/exceptions), recent matches with replays') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It implies retrieval of bot-related data but never explicitly says it fetches a bot by name, leaving the core action vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_match, list_matches, or get_ladder. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative paths are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools